The fact that you can use your character's perfect aiming ability to kill them first doesn't mean it's realistic.
My character is shooting from prone, more often than not, or braced from a window sill. I don't know about everyone else, but I can shoot pretty damn accurately in real life from prone, or with the rifle braced on something.
I can also shoot reasonably accurately from standing, but it's harder.
This seems to be -exactly- what's modeled in the game. Someone shooting from standing will take a split second longer, and 9/10 times this will end in his demise.
Infantrymen in WW2 did not fight like snipers, regardless of what they were armed with. Carrying a bolt-action rifle did not suddenly turn every soldier into a marksman, accurately picking off targets from hundreds of yards away. Switching to semi-automatic rifles was a big step up, not a lateral shift, because infantrymen didn't fight like snipers (who continued to use bolts).
Addressed that here:
Oh absolutely. I fully understand. Just because these weapons are capable of sniper-grade shots doesn't mean that everyone was a sniper.
But it's worth noting that "marksmen" used the standard infantry rifle with a scope mounted on top. In combat situations speed is king, and there was no need to take a minute to line up your sights to pop off a 50 yard killshot. That's what I'm trying to say. All these "realism" guys want all this sway so it takes a few seconds to line up a kill shot, but they're ignoring the fact that inside of 50 meters, it doesn't take superhuman robot aim to shove the butt of a rifle up your nose and squeeze off a lethal shot.
You're agreeing with me. The way the game is now, where people sit in cover and snipe/counter-snipe, is not realistic.
I've never read accounts from Omaha Beach where the attacking infantrymen sighted in on the machine gunners and popped headshots every time a new gunner took the weapon. The simple fact is that in real life, infantrymen fired many more shots per kill than as depicted in RO2, and it's not just because the game is close-quarters.
No, it's perfectly realistic. If soldiers in real life tried to run up to a fortified building in clear view, they'd get their face blown off. Real soldiers use cover, stealth, and careful approach when storming a structure. The Omaha Beach Scene in Saving Private Ryan is a perfect example of this. The soldiers sprint to cover as opposed to standing there and shooting at the machine gunners (who would promptly blow their heads off) despite the fact that under non-combat circumstances the riflemen could take that shot easily. The simple fact of the matter is that getting to cover was more important than killing the MG'er, because you're no good to your squad full of holes. They took cover, advanced cautiously, using speed and surprise to close the distance with as few casualties as possible, and then they climbed into the blind spot of the MG, worked their way around it, and destroyed it.
They did NOT charge blindly at the structure, or sit there and get into a shooting match with a bunker full of HMGs and riflemen. They would lose. Instead, they got to better cover and stealthed their way to the top.
It's also worth noting that the Omaha machine gunners were firing heavy machine guns, bolted to the heavily fortified concrete bunkers they were hiding in, and crewed by two men each. These are -far- more potent and deadly than the light machine guns that the machine gunner class uses in game. I'm not going to rehash the entire argument, just scroll back a few pages to ready my points on this:
On your "Rounds per casualty" argument:
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=906218&postcount=140
On LMGs and what they're supposed to be:
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showpost.php?p=904681&postcount=39
Read: Portable, fully automatic rifles. NOT area of denial field artillery.
Oh goodie, a fun one:
If I said it happened, it did. I do not make a habit of lying.
I have a 23" samsung screen 1980x1080 and sit about 50 cm from it, I can clearly "pixel-shoot" like it has been done by me and by others so many times both in ro2 and especially ro1.
Oh? Which map did it happen on? As it stands, Fallen Fighters and -maybe- Red October Factory and Commissar's House are the only maps that even have 200m sight lines, and everyone I've talked to has said that it's pretty tough to snipe with an ironsights bolt. If it's so easy to score multiple killshots from 200m, why can't anyone else do it? Why can't you put together a simple video demonstrating you doing it from standing position several times in a short time frame?
If you can't do it, than shut your trap. Nobody else can do it either. Just because it's -possible- doesn't mean it's -easy-. Most rifles are accurate out to 600m, but human eyes can't accurately sight a target out that far. That's why snipers (who usually engage at 300m+) and heavy machine gunners (who usually engage at the same range) need special optics on their weapons to be effective. Targets get too hard to track and spot at that range.
And let's not forget that "pixel shooting" range in RO1 was ~100-150m, which is about the limit of the FoV toggle shooting too. We don't even have maps that reduce targets to individual pixels in RO2 yet, and I promise that when we get them it will -not- be easy to hit people from that range without special optics.
I you can't do it, does not mean it did not happen. My point is not to brag about my accuracy, but to ILLUSTRATE the over-the-top precision of rifles in the game.
Then illustrate it. Show us an un-edited video. Screenshots can be collected over the course of several games, and so can edited videos. Show us an un-edited video of you demonstrating the unreasonable accuracy in RO2. It's not bragging if you're trying to make a point. Please, demonstrate, and make sure that the resolution is high enough we can read the rangefinder on your kill board. Several kill shots at 175m+. Let's see it.
Yes there is - increase bullet spread like it was done in RO, between Mosin and SVT sniper rifles.
I can also tell pretty conclusively that you not giving a **** is your and your opinion only. And you know that opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one.
But I'm backing up my opinions with concrete evidence, including pulling in various references, basic ballistics calculations, and my firsthand experience with the weapons in question (I've actually shot a goddamn vintage K98 (with the bayo attached!), I think I know how they handle. Pretty well, all things considered). You may have an "opinion", but you've yet to provide us with any reason we should think your opinion is credible.
Have you applied at Failwire? You better do so, you sure love doing a rimjob for them and their game.
Lol ad hom.
Lucky is when you pull off the same thing, I do this every time.
Show us, oh great sensai, or shut your trap.
+1
Amen!
This happens completely at random. Sometimes all you hear and see is a "puff" from the bullet impact, sometimes you get supressed properly. It's not quite there yet.
IMHO Darkest Hour did that part best.
I can agree with this part. The sound work of being on the receiving end of gunfire could use some work. As I've said above, suppression effects are useless, gamey, and immersion breaking. Having a big scary noise, on the other hand, would do a lot more to freak people out when they're under fire.
